Where Quantum Mechanics Went Off the Rails
Summary
This video critiques quantum mechanics for going off the rails when it started trying to understand wave function collapse. It contrasts Hal Puthoff 1987 paper on hydrogen atom ground state with mainstream physics approaches to electron stability. The presenter explains that classical physics predicted electrons should radiate energy and spiral into nucleus within 10 to the minus 11 seconds but experiments show atom stability.
Rather than admitting classical physics was wrong or adding zero point energy explanation, mainstream physics arbitrarily claimed classical and quantum worlds work differently. Louis de Broglie 1924 thesis proposed electrons as waves leading to wave function concept. Irwin Schrdinger introduced complex valued wave functions that collapse into particles upon measurement criticized as nonsensical.
Puthoff proposed zero point energy continuously replenishes electron providing different universe view as energy reservoir. Charles Chase challenged Sean Caroll claiming zero point energy would be proven usable within his lifetime.
Key Claims (13)
Quantum mechanics went off the rails when it tried to understand wave function collapse.
Evidence: Video identifies wave function collapse interpretation as the point where quantum mechanics went off the rails requiring arbitrary explanations
Hal Puthoff 1987 paper proposed zero point energy keeps electrons elevated preventing collapse.
Evidence: Puthoff ground state of hydrogen atom 1987 conjectured zero point energy reservoir replenishes electron energy preventing radiation collapse
Classical physics predicts electrons should spiral into nucleus within 10 to the minus 11 seconds.
Evidence: Sean Caroll calculation showing electron energy loss timeline based on classical physics predicting instability within 10 to the minus 11 seconds
Experiments prove atoms are stable lasting much longer than classical predictions allow.
Evidence: Evidence that atoms are stable and last longer than hundredth of a billionth of second contradicting classical predictions
Mainstream physics arbitrarily claimed classical and quantum worlds work differently to avoid admitting error.
Evidence: Instead of reconciling reality with physics by adding zero point energy mainstream claimed worlds work differently because of reasons
Louis de Broglie 1924 thesis proposed electrons should be thought of as waves rather than particles.
Evidence: De Broglie PhD thesis suggesting electrons as waves became foundation for modern wave function concept
Schrodinger wave function uses complex valued functions that become particles only when measured.
Evidence: Schrodinger picture uses complex valued wave functions at every point in space that look like particles only when measured or observed
Wave function collapse interpretation is nonsensical because electrons cannot know if they are being observed.
Evidence: Criticized question of how electron knows if someone is looking at it to determine particle behavior versus wave behavior
Zero point energy acts as reservoir that all energy goes back to continuously replenishing electron.
Evidence: Puthoff proposed zero point energy as reservoir that gives energy back every time electron loses energy keeping it elevated
Orbital shapes in chemistry represent definite energy wave shapes not particle orbits.
Evidence: Chemistry orbitals show wavelike shapes with discrete possible places representing particular shapes of definite energy
Mainstream claim that electron is cloud with no movement because moments in time show specific shapes is incorrect.
Evidence: Presenter argues that even in waves movement happens and shape changes indicate action contrary to mainstream claim of time slice stability
Charles Chase challenged Sean Caroll claiming zero point energy would be proven usable within his lifetime.
Evidence: Charles Chase told Sean Caroll he would be proven wrong about zero point energy never being usable before he dies
Physics community makes up explanations like dark energy and dark matter instead of reexamining foundations.
Evidence: Video claims physicists make up dark energy and dark matter explanations instead of addressing foundational problems with mass and gravity
Theories Presented (4)
Video Details
- Published
- December 19, 2025
- Duration
- 8:27
- Views
- 2,737
- Claims Extracted
- 13
- Theories
- 4
- References
- 9
People Mentioned
Full transcript
Show
The main point of contention I know exactly where quantum mechanics fell apart. Where quantum mechanics went off the ra went off the rails is when it started trying to understand this idea of the wave function collapsing. That's where quantum mechanics went off the rails. It's Hal Pudof his 1987 paper is the most important one. The ground state of the hydrogen atom. Hal Pudof ground state of the hydrogen atom 1987.
He said his conjecture is thusly. He hypothesized that the electron that is spinning around the atom the ion should collapse. It should lose energy. It should radiate energy away. The electron is spinning so fast around the ion. It should be radiating energy away and then it should basically collapse into the ion fall into like basically like the earth should fall into the sun but it doesn't.
This is right where quantum mechanics fell apart and this is why this was how Pudaf's first paper because Hal Pudof said the reason why the electron does not collapse into the ion is because the zero point energy is keeping it lifted up. The reason why the electron doesn't radiate energy and collapse into the ion is the 0 point energy is keeping it elevated. Every time you it loses a little bit of energy, the zero point energy gives it the energy back.
This is a completely different way of looking at the universe because now you look at the the zero point energy is basically like the reservoir of energy that all energy goes back to. That's a completely different view. Now, do you want to see something cool? Do you want to see something cool? Sean Carol claimed that zero point energy is real, but we would never use it. We'll never be able to make warp drives.
Not in a thousand years will anybody ever figure these things out. And Charles Chase was dunking on him. Charles Chase was dunking on him, saying he's going to be proven wrong before he even dies. Here is Shan Carroll. That same exact Shawn Carroll. That means that these electrons don't just sit there in the same orbits forever.
They lose energy, which means they spiral in to the center of the atom where the nucleus is. You can even calculate, it's a nice little homework assignment. Calculate typically how long would it take for an electron to lose enough energy to spiral all the way into the nucleus. The answer is about 10us 11 seconds. So, we can do that experiment. There we did it.
Uh, it didn't happen. Atoms are stable. You and I are made of atoms. Our atoms clearly last for longer than hundredth of a billionth of a second. This theory is clearly wrong. What's going on? So, there were some steps.
We're going to skip some steps. >> So, there you go. Right there. There you have it. That's Sean Carroll telling you straight up the exact same thing how Pudof describes in his very first scientific paper about zero point energy. 1987 Hal Pudof comes in and says we looked at this problem and I said the answer to this problem is that there's a zero point energy field everywhere and that's where the extra energy is coming from. That's the reason why the electron doesn't radiate it energy.
That's the reason why the electrons are stable when if we just do the math it says they shouldn't be stable. So we have a major problem right here. We have a major problem which is we did the math based on classical physics and it didn't work. The experiments were wrong. Classical physics was proven to be wrong. So what did we do?
Did we did we go and redo classical physics? Of course we didn't admit when we're wrong. No. We're Redditors. We never admit when we're wrong. So we didn't admit when we're wrong. So instead what we did was we said okay the classical world and the quantum world just work differently. They just work differently.
That's our explanation. Instead of trying to reconcile reality reconcile reality with our physics we just said nah just like works differently because of reasons. Works differently because of reasons. So let's I want to hear the reason from Sean Carol. I didn't even play this part yet. So let's see what he says.
What is the rational? I think that the rationale is going to be like the Copenhagen interpretation, like various interpretations of how to explain this. And this is why physics is so stupid. This is why physics is so effing stupid because they pretend like their ideas are above reproach, but you can literally just point to many scientific experiments that prove them wrong. And they'll just say, "Well, we'll just make up something new to explain that. We'll just make up dark energy.
We'll just make up dark matter. We don't worry about having to explain mass or gravity. We don't care. We can't explain any of these things. It's fine. It's actually just we're we're straight up clown shoes right now when it comes to physics in this world.
So, I know I'm about to hear something really stupid, but here we go. Anyway, big step toward getting the right answer happened in 1924 when Louis de Broy, who was a graduate student at the time, this is a a little challenge to you graduate students out there. What are you going to do with your PhD thesis? uh Louis de Bruyy's PhD thesis was suggesting that electrons should be thought of as waves rather than particles. >> Boom. >> So we would call this wave today the wave function of the of the electron. >> This is actually fine.
This is actually fine still. >> You know an example of it would be if you've ever taken a chemistry class and you've learned about the orbitals that electrons have in different kinds of atoms. You see that these are wavelike shapes. They're definite shapes with, you know, discrete possible places that they can take. That's because they're particular shapes of definite energy. But what it means is there is a minimum size for the wave to take around the electron around the nucleus rather. And this is supposed to explain the stability of matter. The electron is not in this view a particle moving in an orbit.
It's not even a particle moving randomly in a cloud. In this view, the view that I'm going to advocate, although not everyone agrees with it, the electron is the cloud. That is what the electron is. And so you ask the question, what is the shape of the cloud? And for all of these orbitals, the shape of the cloud is constant in time. There's no vibration going on.
There's no orbiting going on. So there's no reason to emit electromagnetic waves and decay. And very soon, yeah, I don't agree with that. I This is where I just it falls off the rail. It goes off the rails for me. You're saying, okay, well, like every time I image it, I just get a specific shape, so therefore there's nothing moving.
That's not true. If the shape is changing, there's movement happening. Even in waves there's movement happening. So this idea that it feels like we're just cheating when we're saying, "Oh, okay. Uh each each moment in time is just a specific moment in which we took the picture, therefore nothing's really moving." No, it definitely there's definitely action going on.
There's definitely movement happening. So I think the correct interpretation is yes, everything's waves, but no, this doesn't solve the problem. It's not just magically stable. And this doesn't explain why it's stable. You just said, "Oh, it's a moment in time now. Therefore, it's stable."
That doesn't explain anything. The whole point of instability is that it's over a period of time. Anyway, there we go. Okay. >> Thereafter, Irwin Schneer suggests that he can come up with an equation that I actually want to take a look at this for a second as well. Here we go. These waves satisfy.
It's a little bit more sophisticated than De Bruyy's point of view because in Shinger's picture, the wave function is a complex valued function. So at every point in space there's a complex number. We call this S of X. At them as soon as you measure them or observe them they start looking like particles. Now this is obviously crazy talk, right? Like how does the electron know if I'm looking at it?
Why? Okay, so this is the part where it starts to go off the rails when we're talking about it's going to act like a particle when I'm looking at it versus not looking at it and talking about the idea of coherence. And so anyway, that was enough.